... The real question is, however, who’s to decide when a particular Charter right reasonably applies and when it doesn’t? ...

Yes, it's all the fault of those gosh-darned pesky rights, making things, you know, complicated and everything. And the CCFD's suggestion:

Blatantly missing from the rights question is any direct reference to public judgment. The constitution is supposed to reflect the values, beliefs and priorities of the Canadian people, not just those of the legal elite.

We should amend Charter section 33 to state that in those rare but important cases when courts and politicians disagree about what the Charter means, the question will be settled by a public referendum in the next general election.

Brilliant. Because when it comes to deciding on what fundamental rights Canadians are entitled to, I can't think of a better final arbiter than the man on the street. You know, the one who, when asked by a reporter, "Who do you think will win tonight's game?", they're like, "The Leafs. Fer shure. You bet."

Yup, that's just the guy I want with the power to override the Supreme Court of Canada.

1 comment:

Governing by referendum is just a way of formalizing mob rule. It's regressing back to the days before modern democratic thought.

But that's okay, because the kind of people who make this kind of suggestion also see "On Liberty" as a dangerous book. They're right -- it's a huge danger to power. With that kind of book, the people might be able to rule themselves.